|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 12, 2018 14:30:35 GMT
But democracy is not just about elections, it is about the whole system. For the system to function healthily, people have to be able to carry out the requirements of the role. In the case of the US President, that's international diplomacy, negotiating with Congress and the ability to oversee a large organisation (and to select subordinates who can do the same.) There's nothing to say that somebody can't learn those things on the job, but there's a strong argument to be made that it is better to pick somebody who will face a less steep learning curve, because they're more likely to do a competent job and to maintain the basic health of the system. It is of course legitimate to say that you personally think this is less important. But it's not anti-democratic for other people to say that they would not vote for a candidate who they don't feel has sufficient experience. FWIW, Oprah does look like one of the more plausible celebrity candidates, but when your opposition is Mark Zuckerberg then that is a low bar to clear. Fundamentally I'm just not interested in the candidate as symbol, it's much more important what their candidacy is intended to achieve. I accept that it would be preferable in ordinary circumstances but I believe that given the state that career politicians have left the West in, a radical change is needed. As an observation, I don’t think we’re that far apart tbh. On that observation, I think we are. Radical change is much harder to achieve with outsiders, precisely because they're less likely to know where the levers to achieve radical change are. Particularly since, whilst US politicians are drawn from far too small a set of social groups, 'outsiders' belong to an even smaller group, namely multi-millionaires with messianic/narcissistic personality types. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 12, 2018 15:16:24 GMT
I accept that it would be preferable in ordinary circumstances but I believe that given the state that career politicians have left the West in, a radical change is needed. As an observation, I don’t think we’re that far apart tbh. On that observation, I think we are. Radical change is much harder to achieve with outsiders, precisely because they're less likely to know where the levers to achieve radical change are. Particularly since, whilst US politicians are drawn from far too small a set of social groups, 'outsiders' belong to an even smaller group, namely multi-millionaires with messianic/narcissistic personality types. I suppose the problem is that the Democrats can't risk another Hillary, so are looking for someone who has some sort of 'outsider' status - to an extent Sanders did this because of his longstanding Independent classification The other plus point is that Oprah is very popular and really does represent the American dream, so would be a relatively easy sell. She was also brought up in the midwest.... |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 12, 2018 16:26:10 GMT
I suppose the problem is that the Democrats can't risk another Hillary, so are looking for someone who has some sort of 'outsider' status - to an extent Sanders did this because of his longstanding Independent classification The other plus point is that Oprah is very popular and really does represent the American dream, so would be a relatively easy sell. She was also brought up in the midwest.... Mike have you looked up what Oprah believes on policy specifics? You’re ramping her an awful lot which contrasts starkly with your opinions regarding the moderate end of the Labour Party. No. I'm not, but I completely understand why she is looked upon as a positive option in the US The state of the political class there when candidates have been called either Clinton or Bush for election after election, the fact that to mount a challenge you need oodles of money - and some conclude better to have someone with their own money than reliance on special interests - and essentially, the Presidential race is a personality contest. The reality is that there is no obvious candidate from the Democrats at the moment. And there is no-one in US politics who is any more left wing than the 'moderate end' of the Labour party. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 12, 2018 16:50:16 GMT
No. I'm not, but I completely understand why she is looked upon as a positive option in the US The state of the political class there when candidates have been called either Clinton or Bush for election after election, the fact that to mount a challenge you need oodles of money - and some conclude better to have someone with their own money than reliance on special interests - and essentially, the Presidential race is a personality contest. The reality is that there is no obvious candidate from the Democrats at the moment. And there is no-one in US politics who is any more left wing than the 'moderate end' of the Labour party. I’m personally backing Bernie sanders, the most popular politician in America, who breaks many of those rules. He ran a campaign on policy that nearly won the primary and would’ve almost certainly beaten Trump in the general, entirely funded by the grassroots. Am just surprised you’re not supporting him as well. Of course the definition of a moderate is different in the US, over there I would be considered far left. But he is already 76, and do you think he will want to stand again? I have my doubts.... And would the Democrats select him? They could have selected him instead of Hillary. They didn't. I always supported him and would again. This is what I mean when I say there isn't an obvious candidate. Elizabeth Warren would be a good option but she won't commit to wanting to stand either. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,020
|
Post by Khunanup on Jan 12, 2018 17:45:56 GMT
No. I'm not, but I completely understand why she is looked upon as a positive option in the US The state of the political class there when candidates have been called either Clinton or Bush for election after election, the fact that to mount a challenge you need oodles of money - and some conclude better to have someone with their own money than reliance on special interests - and essentially, the Presidential race is a personality contest. The reality is that there is no obvious candidate from the Democrats at the moment. And there is no-one in US politics who is any more left wing than the 'moderate end' of the Labour party. I’m personally backing Bernie sanders, the most popular politician in America, who breaks many of those rules. He ran a campaign on policy that nearly won the primary and would’ve almost certainly beaten Trump in the general, entirely funded by the grassroots. Am just surprised you’re not supporting him as well. Of course the definition of a moderate is different in the US, over there I would be considered far left. Bernie did a Corbyn. It was an insurgent campaign but stood zero chance of winning because he was never able to put together a winning coalition. He would have lost against Trump but it would have been by different states (the 'pubs would have branded him as a dangerous Communist and those swathes of Never-Trump republicans in the suburbs and exurbs either would have just not voted or voted Trump to stop Sanders. Never forget that Sanders got an essentially easy ride in the Dem primary because Clinton's team knew they needed his supporters on board for the general. In a general election the negative ads against Sanders would have been legion. And, because he had attacked Hillary quite strongly, her strongest supporters may well not have bothered either... |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,020
|
Post by Khunanup on Jan 12, 2018 19:48:20 GMT
Bernie did a Corbyn. It was an insurgent campaign but stood zero chance of winning because he was never able to put together a winning coalition. He would have lost against Trump but it would have been by different states (the 'pubs would have branded him as a dangerous Communist and those swathes of Never-Trump republicans in the suburbs and exurbs either would have just not voted or voted Trump to stop Sanders. Never forget that Sanders got an essentially easy ride in the Dem primary because Clinton's team knew they needed his supporters on board for the general. In a general election the negative ads against Sanders would have been legion. And, because he had attacked Hillary quite strongly, her strongest supporters may well not have bothered either... If all this is true (which I don’t think it is but it’s all subjective and hypothetical so hard to argue) then why does he consistently poll as the most popular politician in America? And why did he consistently out poll Trump by an average of 10.4 points in hypothetical matchups, far more than Hillary’s 3.2? Are you telling me he wouldn’t have been able to pull of 44, 10 and 23 thousand votes in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin respectively? Given Trump was the most unfavourable candidate in US history and only won, imo, as he ran against the one person large numbers of people detested even more. The Obama coalition fragmented as Clinton was seen as the establishment, youth turnout was down and famously poor whites switched to trump. Never trump republicans are a bit of an overhyped phenomenon, just 7% of republicans voted democrat compared to 9% of democrats who voted republican. So whatever you think, to say he had a 0% chance is just silly, as it was when people said it about Obama and indeed Trump. No Virginia, no New Hampshire, no New Mexico, no Colorado, no Nevada, maybe only 1 EC vote from Maine so what difference do the three states you mention make? There were endemic failings with Sanders primary campaign which is why he could not win (HISPANIC VOTERS most particularly just in case I wasn't obvious enough in the states, well most of them, I've mentioned). Just like the cult of Corbyn, the cult of Sanders can only take you so far but the underlying weakness of the person in question will put a relatively low ceiling on the proportion of the electorate who will be willing to vote for them (i.e. someway below 50p/c). |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312 
|
Post by maxque on Jan 12, 2018 22:53:31 GMT
If all this is true (which I don’t think it is but it’s all subjective and hypothetical so hard to argue) then why does he consistently poll as the most popular politician in America? And why did he consistently out poll Trump by an average of 10.4 points in hypothetical matchups, far more than Hillary’s 3.2? Are you telling me he wouldn’t have been able to pull of 44, 10 and 23 thousand votes in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin respectively? Given Trump was the most unfavourable candidate in US history and only won, imo, as he ran against the one person large numbers of people detested even more. The Obama coalition fragmented as Clinton was seen as the establishment, youth turnout was down and famously poor whites switched to trump. Never trump republicans are a bit of an overhyped phenomenon, just 7% of republicans voted democrat compared to 9% of democrats who voted republican. So whatever you think, to say he had a 0% chance is just silly, as it was when people said it about Obama and indeed Trump. maybe only 1 EC vote from Maine so what difference do the three states you mention make? There were endemic failings with Sanders primary campaign which is why he could not win (HISPANIC VOTERS most particularly just in case I wasn't obvious enough in the states, well most of them, I've mentioned). Just like the cult of Corbyn, the cult of Sanders can only take you so far but the underlying weakness of the person in question will put a relatively low ceiling on the proportion of the electorate who will be willing to vote for them (i.e. someway below 50p/c). I have significant doubts about a number of states you named. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,020
|
Post by Khunanup on Jan 12, 2018 23:07:24 GMT
No Virginia, no New Hampshire, no New Mexico, no Colorado, no Nevada, maybe only 1 EC vote from Maine so what difference do the three states you mention make? There were endemic failings with Sanders primary campaign which is why he could not win (HISPANIC VOTERS most particularly just in case I wasn't obvious enough in the states, well most of them, I've mentioned). Just like the cult of Corbyn, the cult of Sanders can only take you so far but the underlying weakness of the person in question will put a relatively low ceiling on the proportion of the electorate who will be willing to vote for them (i.e. someway below 50p/c). I have significant doubts about a number of states you named. Fair enough. I've a pretty good idea of what kind of campaign would have been run by and run against Sanders and I think he would have cratered in these states compared to Clinton. For those who generally support the Dems wherever they are in the world remember that the two primary candidates for their nomination had flaws coming out of their ears and there was noone better who put up a credible challenge. This was despite the Republican primary line up probably being the worst of any major party in history. The Republicans have similar problems next time whether or not Trump tries again because their base is erm, difficult. The Dems don't have to but shouldn't fall into the populist something for nothing trap that Trump sold to the country and Sanders sold to the Dem primary voters (both of whom failed to get anywhere near a majority of their electorate...). |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,764
Member is Online
|
Post by mboy on Jan 13, 2018 0:37:01 GMT
In her own way, Oprah is as vacuous and shallow as Trump is with an ego to match. Never been impressed by her as her understanding of a wide range of issues is extremely limited, like most celebrity 'activists'. Oprah is dangerously anti-science. Perhaps more so than Trump! She's into anti-vax and healing forces and all kinds of shit. |
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,700
|
Post by Jack on Jan 13, 2018 3:20:18 GMT
In her own way, Oprah is as vacuous and shallow as Trump is with an ego to match. Never been impressed by her as her understanding of a wide range of issues is extremely limited, like most celebrity 'activists'. Oprah is dangerously anti-science. Perhaps more so than Trump! She's into anti-vax and healing forces and all kinds of shit. She's bound to win then. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 13, 2018 10:28:50 GMT
On that observation, I think we are. Radical change is much harder to achieve with outsiders, precisely because they're less likely to know where the levers to achieve radical change are. Particularly since, whilst US politicians are drawn from far too small a set of social groups, 'outsiders' belong to an even smaller group, namely multi-millionaires with messianic/narcissistic personality types. I suppose the problem is that the Democrats can't risk another Hillary, so are looking for someone who has some sort of 'outsider' status - to an extent Sanders did this because of his longstanding Independent classification The other plus point is that Oprah is very popular and really does represent the American dream, so would be a relatively easy sell. She was also brought up in the midwest.... Hang on a second. Quite aside from the whole idea that you need oodles of money being potentially incorrect (Trump got heavily outspent and even the Tories have a better ground game than US parties, so there's a decent argument that you could run presidential campaigns on significantly slimmer budgets), you're ignoring why Clinton lost. It wasn't because she was a professional politician, it was because she made no effort to appeal to Rust Belt swing voters, and because she was perceived as an elitist (and because she was female). How exactly do you think somebody with a media background (i. e. based a long way away from the Rust Belt) would go down? Having been born there wouldn't be sufficient - Clinton's family roots are in Pennsylvania coal country, but she didn't exactly do well there, did she? |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,764
Member is Online
|
Post by mboy on Jan 13, 2018 10:44:39 GMT
Yes. Every time one of my friends brings up some celebrity candidate (Oprah, Michelle Obama, Mark Zuckerberg, etc), I say "and how do they win back the rust belt?" Adding 5 million more votes in NY and CA does not win.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,946
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 13, 2018 10:51:37 GMT
But to a not insignificant extent, the answer to that is "not being HRC". She was *uniquely* toxic.
(though I agree that Zuckerberg at least would also be a terrible candidate, but for other if not totally unrelated reasons)
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 13, 2018 11:35:51 GMT
Thing is, there's no reason a celebrity candidate would be any worse than an establishment candidate at winning back the Rust Belt. Trump is, after all, a celebrity candidate.
But they need to actually have some ideas about what to do, rather than just a willingness to talk sadly and patronisingly about these areas. Wait for the policies before picking a candidate.
(Also, I doubt they'd add many extra votes in NY and CA.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 13, 2018 15:23:27 GMT
I suppose the problem is that the Democrats can't risk another Hillary, so are looking for someone who has some sort of 'outsider' status - to an extent Sanders did this because of his longstanding Independent classification The other plus point is that Oprah is very popular and really does represent the American dream, so would be a relatively easy sell. She was also brought up in the midwest.... Hang on a second. Quite aside from the whole idea that you need oodles of money being potentially incorrect (Trump got heavily outspent and even the Tories have a better ground game than US parties, so there's a decent argument that you could run presidential campaigns on significantly slimmer budgets), you're ignoring why Clinton lost. It wasn't because she was a professional politician, it was because she made no effort to appeal to Rust Belt swing voters, and because she was perceived as an elitist (and because she was female). How exactly do you think somebody with a media background (i. e. based a long way away from the Rust Belt) would go down? Having been born there wouldn't be sufficient - Clinton's family roots are in Pennsylvania coal country, but she didn't exactly do well there, did she? I think elitist and professional politician are one and the same. It's "Washington elite". Trump is just as much part of an elite by any sociological definition but he is seen as outside the political elite. And Clinton lost because of what she is like. Not because she is a woman. I certainly agree about the rust belt but she chose not to bother with it. Trump is from New York and owns hotels. He isn't a steel magnate. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 13, 2018 15:26:42 GMT
Yes. Every time one of my friends brings up some celebrity candidate (Oprah, Michelle Obama, Mark Zuckerberg, etc), I say "and how do they win back the rust belt?" Adding 5 million more votes in NY and CA does not win. The rust belt happily voted for Obama. Its certainly about policies but its also about getting voters out. Clinton couldnt manage that outside the areas which were strongly in her favour. That included minority voters who it was thought she would do well with. |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,764
Member is Online
|
Post by mboy on Jan 13, 2018 20:00:38 GMT
Obama did well enough in the rust belt because he's a patriot who loves America and doesn't parade lefty self-loathing, and because he talked relentlessly about jobs and reigning in casino capitalism...none of which was the touchy feely loathing bollox we can expect from Oprah and co.
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,056
Member is Online
|
Post by jamie on Jan 13, 2018 22:03:00 GMT
We shouldn't forget Obama enjoyed a very favourable environment in the Rust Belt. 2008 was an economic crisis which REALLY hurt the Rust Belt in particular, while in 2012 he ran on the stimulus + auto bailout which Romney opposed, and even in 2012 there was a disproportionate swing in much of the Rust Belt. By 2016 these states were stagnating and there wasn't really any goodwill left for Democrats while Trump ran a campaign that really appealed to many Democratic voters in these areas. In retrospect, I'm quite surprised that Hillary was so close in Michigan and Wisconsin.
For 2020, I can't see Oprah doing worse, mainly because Trump will have had 4 years of incumbency and probably not changed things radically (at least in a good way). As long as she actually bothers to get an economic message and turn up to these places she can win Michigan and Wisconsin.
Also, Oprah is the only one who could get Obama level support in the African-American community, which would put North Carolina and Georgia immediately in play. She's not a great candidate for the Rust Belt, but unlike Hillary she actually has great appeal for a large section of voters in some swing states (as opposed to just liberal coastal states).
|
|
jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 7,056
Member is Online
|
Post by jamie on Jan 13, 2018 22:07:10 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 14, 2018 14:55:33 GMT
Time is running out. I think both Biden and Sanders are probably too old but there's no-one actually coming forward from the Democratic side
|
|
